What? People said about the previous article that TPB people saying anything about this was a joke...and those who said such were critical of others who did not take it as a joke. Guess it wasn't a joke after all now was it. I was even accused of 'not getting' it. Guess I and others had it right after all.

These Pirate Bay idiots are hypocrites, criminals, cowards, and now, fools as well.

Rosa Park did a crime and should have been punish more then what she got, THE LAW IS THE LAW am I right?

I will always stand for the freedoms of little man/woman over a faceless soul less big bizz trying to make a buck.

What? People said about the previous article that TPB people saying anything about this was a joke...and those who said such were critical of others who did not take it as a joke. Guess it wasn't a joke after all now was it. I was even accused of 'not getting' it. Guess I and others had it right after all.

These Pirate Bay idiots are hypocrites, criminals, cowards, and now, fools as well.

It's still a joke and you still don't get it.

LoL Oh I get that the Pirate Bay idiots are jokes of humanity, but i'm simply realizing what specific types of humanity they are.

What? People said about the previous article that TPB people saying anything about this was a joke...and those who said such were critical of others who did not take it as a joke. Guess it wasn't a joke after all now was it. I was even accused of 'not getting' it. Guess I and others had it right after all.

These Pirate Bay idiots are hypocrites, criminals, cowards, and now, fools as well.

Rosa Park did a crime and should have been punish more then what she got, THE LAW IS THE LAW am I right?

I will always stand for the freedoms of little man/woman over a faceless soul less big bizz trying to make a buck.

I know the sun will probably come up tomorrow, I know the sky is recognized generally as some shade of blue, I know that when i'm getting rained on that its probably raining. I don't need anyone to tell me these things, or qualify them, or apply semantics to them in an attempt to say they are not what they are. Likewise, when something is wrong I know its wrong or recognize it as wrong, and despite semantics and exacting definitions applied by law or attempted by others it still does not change the fact that something is wrong even if the law does not have a category for it or does nothing about it or is delayed in doing something about it.

Rosa Park did nothing wrong, yet the law of the time said she did but that still does not mean she did anything wrong and no one in their right mind would believe she really did something wrong because she simply exercised a basic human right already guranteed under the constitution. Did she violate the law as it was written at the time? Yes she did. Was she wrong in violating the law? No she wasn't, she exercised her rights guranteed her under the constitution and inherent, and the law was wrong because its intent was part of the overall intent to opress a people. Rosa Parks exercised rightful civil disobedience and did not take anything that was not hers by right. The Pirate Bay idiots had no right given them under any law or constitution, and it is not an inherent right, to take something or facilitate the taking of something that did not belong to them. The analogy you used is really a bad one.

If someone takes something that does not belong to them or faciliates in some way for others to take something that does not belong to them, that is wrong because those things do not belong to them and they had no permission to take them, no law or constitution that said they had the right to do so, no inherent right to do so, it was wrong. If someone walked into your house and took something but claimed it was an exercise of free speech or some other such nonsense, would you think it was wrong for them to take that without your permission or even be in your house to begin with?

Well, it seems people want to always dance around the fact of right and wrong in these cases like with TBP. They dance around it with semantics or saying the law says this or that as some sort of "feel good about their words" to ignore that really deep down unless there is something really wrong with the person they know that when something is wrong its wrong and no one really needs to tell them that. Sort of like they know tomorrow the sun will probably come up.....

If a person doesn't know the difference between what Rosa Parks did and what TBP did, then I doubt they really know the difference between right and wrong. If they need the law to apply semantics and definitions when something is wrong then they probably don't really know the difference between right and wrong. If all they can do is take specific words and try to apply legal semantics in some way then they probably do not understand the concept of right and wrong.

If the end result is that courts have testimony from TPB that piracy is harmful and their copyright should be upheld, and the only upside is that it helps a defense based on parody, my personal belief is that it's a net loss.

Why are you confusing TPB with the public prosecutor?

Even if the TPB claims trial (e.g. through a right of private action or with the permission of the public prosecutor) there will be no "testimony" about piracy being harmful - it's just a question of whether what CIAPC did was infringement.

Even if the TPB claims trial (e.g. through a right of private action or with the permission of the public prosecutor) there will be no "testimony" about piracy being harmful - it's just a question of whether what CIAPC did was infringement.

And they can subpoena TPB people to show up for trial. Defendants usually get to call witnesses, too. In this case, hostile witnesses, to be sure.

Except that if the group is found to be infringing, it doesn't weaken copyright law, it strengthens it. It may weaken this specific group, it may weaken the public credibility of the anti-piracy organization, but the **law** would be strengthened. Because the law doesn't care about *who* is doing the infringement or what their position is on the selfsame law, it only cares about what they did (and to some extent why they did it, e.g. fair use, but that is usually contained within the "what"). If TPB wins, it will set the precedent that copying CSS in this manner is illegal, which sets a precedent that further ingrains copyright law.

The legal precedent would be bad, but it would discredit their lobbying efforts. It's like a well played chess move. They sacrifice a pawn to capture the queen or they just capture a knight. Yes, they might have a loss, but it's still a net win either way.

Who gives a shit about discrediting a single group? The legal precedent is the thing that, in the end, has actual legal merit. Groups can disband and reform under a different name; legal precedents last a long time.

So no, it's not a net win at all.

Actually do we even know whether Finland abides by precedent?

Also, are you saying that even if TPB wins this would be something new? (and if you're not, then what's the big deal?)

Even if Finland abides by precedent, if there is a fundamental change in copyright law any precedent would be affected (or changed completey).

Edit: Finland seems to be a civil law jurisdiction, and in civil law jurisdictions typically precedents are not binding (contra US/UK/other common law jurisdictions).

Even if the TPB claims trial (e.g. through a right of private action or with the permission of the public prosecutor) there will be no "testimony" about piracy being harmful - it's just a question of whether what CIAPC did was infringement.

And they can subpoena TPB people to show up for trial. Defendants usually get to call witnesses, too. In this case, hostile witnesses, to be sure.

Damages. It's not "what they think about piracy". It's about DEMONSTRATING HARM.

I'd have to check the laws of Finland to see the statutes on copyright infringement to be certain (so all of this is coming from an American legal mindset), but if there is a predetermined amount of harm to get to a count of criminal copyright infringement (as there is in the states), then they'll need to prove that they have reached that if they want a criminal conviction.

Meaning, they'll have to prove how harmful copyright infringement can be. Which is not a good precedent to set, for them.

Damages. It's not "what they think about piracy". It's about DEMONSTRATING HARM.

I'd have to check the laws of Finland to see the statutes on copyright infringement to be certain (so all of this is coming from an American legal mindset), but if there is a predetermined amount of harm to get to a count of criminal copyright infringement (as there is in the states), then they'll need to prove that they have reached that if they want a criminal conviction.

Meaning, they'll have to prove how harmful copyright infringement can be. Which is not a good precedent to set, for them.

For my understanding, what is the "predetermined amount of harm" you are referring to in the US context? Isn't this just proving infringement, after which a copyright owner can select statutory damages?

Operative Alex wrote:

Midnitte wrote:

Does no one understand what this case is really about? Getting that 9 year old a new computer.

Except, of course, as I've already pointed out, she's already been told she's getting her computer back after the settlement, and possibly already has received it back already.

So the case is "really" about getting a girl a new computer...even though she's getting (or has gotten) her computer back anyway?

For my understanding, what is the "predetermined amount of harm" you are referring to in the US context? Isn't this just proving infringement, after which a copyright owner can select statutory damages?

Here is a handy link to US Copyright law as it relates to criminal cases. There are three possible causes for criminal copyright infringement. If it was done for commercial gain (and that would be my counterargument if I were for TPB), if it was worth more than $1,000, or if the work was being distributed for commercial distribution.

For my understanding, what is the "predetermined amount of harm" you are referring to in the US context? Isn't this just proving infringement, after which a copyright owner can select statutory damages?

Here is a handy link to US Copyright law as it relates to criminal cases. There are three possible causes for criminal copyright infringement. If it was done for commercial gain (and that would be my counterargument if I were for TPB), if it was worth more than $1,000, or if the work was being distributed for commercial distribution.

Okay, lets assume this is the case for Finland too. How does the requirement to prove any of that make TPB's views on copyright relevant? Isn't the question just whether any of those can be shown?

Okay, lets assume this is the case for Finland too. How does the requirement to prove any of that make TPB's views on copyright relevant? Isn't the question just whether any of those can be shown?

Right, and showing that there is a real monetary damage to piracy is dangerous for TPB. To prove that piracy causes real-world damage is certainly not something you want to argue if your position is that piracy isn't a bad thing. If I'm CIAPC's lawyers, and they argue that there is a potential monetary loss, I don't argue it. That's what they want-- testimony from a piracy leader that piracy does have real-world damage. Every case they'd ever have against a pirate would then be buttressed by testimony from TPB that violating copyright causes harm. That's worth plenty to me.

Alternatively, if they show that they are distributing TPB for commercial purposes...that means they are exposing themselves to profiting from illicit activity. They would have to be really, really cautious in arguing that, and I would hope their legal team would avoid such an argument. Whereas the first argument poses more risk to actual infringers (their users), the second really puts themselves at risk, legally.

That's somewhat invalidated by their usage policy which states "Organisations (for instance, but not limited to, non-profit or companies) may use the system if they clear this with the system operators first. Permission for organisations/companies is not needed for obvious "well meaning" usage, i.e. distributing works of cultural benefit for the end user..

So, in my mind, they have standing if CIAPC didn't clear it with them. The question for me is not whether, by law, they have a right to sue. They do. My argument is mostly about what the fallout of the case would be, and I personally simply don't think there's a simple way for TPB to go through this without exposing themselves (or their users) to further harm down the line.

Damages. It's not "what they think about piracy". It's about DEMONSTRATING HARM.

I'd have to check the laws of Finland to see the statutes on copyright infringement to be certain (so all of this is coming from an American legal mindset), but if there is a predetermined amount of harm to get to a count of criminal copyright infringement (as there is in the states), then they'll need to prove that they have reached that if they want a criminal conviction.

Meaning, they'll have to prove how harmful copyright infringement can be. Which is not a good precedent to set, for them.

TPB doesn't have to prove harm for sanctions, as this will be prosecuted by government, and sanctions will be from a fine upto 2 years in prison. Also in the case prosecuted previously no harm was shown.

Okay, lets assume this is the case for Finland too. How does the requirement to prove any of that make TPB's views on copyright relevant? Isn't the question just whether any of those can be shown?

Right, and showing that there is a real monetary damage to piracy is dangerous for TPB. To prove that piracy causes real-world damage is certainly not something you want to argue if your position is that piracy isn't a bad thing. If I'm CIAPC's lawyers, and they argue that there is a potential monetary loss, I don't argue it. That's what they want-- testimony from a piracy leader that piracy does have real-world damage. Every case they'd ever have against a pirate would then be buttressed by testimony from TPB that violating copyright causes harm. That's worth plenty to me.

Alternatively, if they show that they are distributing TPB for commercial purposes...that means they are exposing themselves to profiting from illicit activity. They would have to be really, really cautious in arguing that, and I would hope their legal team would avoid such an argument. Whereas the first argument poses more risk to actual infringers (their users), the second really puts themselves at risk, legally.

Why would the testimony from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage be relevant even in a US law context? Perhaps I just don't understand your point.

Lets just assume for ease of understanding that we're talking about the US. I think we both agree that the relevant copyright law says whatever it says? I think we also agree that what the PP/AG/TPB would need to do in court is show that CIAPC is in breach of the law?

Whether TPB agrees with what the law says is irrelevant, and therefore any "testimony" from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage should just be inadmissible (i.e. even if CIAPC wants to ask TPB this a court would likely say there is no relevance)?

In particular, all that the court would need to decide on is whether CIAPC actually infringed wilfully and if so whether the infringement was done in such a way that one of the three limbs was accurate? This has nothing to do with TPB's views on whether piracy has real-world damage.

Or are you saying that in a US criminal copyright context the intention of the copyright owner in bringing an infringement claim is relevant to whether or not that infringement claim is proven?

Btw, nice one on the usage policy Obviously neither the slashdot poster or I looked into it very much. hahaha.

Damages. It's not "what they think about piracy". It's about DEMONSTRATING HARM.

I'd have to check the laws of Finland to see the statutes on copyright infringement to be certain (so all of this is coming from an American legal mindset), but if there is a predetermined amount of harm to get to a count of criminal copyright infringement (as there is in the states), then they'll need to prove that they have reached that if they want a criminal conviction.

Meaning, they'll have to prove how harmful copyright infringement can be. Which is not a good precedent to set, for them.

While it does smack of having your cake and eating it too, why does TPB have to "prove" anything, when the defendant's own website condemns the act as harmful?

i.e. "Yeah, *we* don't think it's harmful, but apparently *they* do, and we're not going to argue with them *in this case*."

1. A person who for profit and in violation of the Copyright Act (404/61) and in a manner liable to cause considerable inconvenience or damage to the owner of rights, breaches another’s rights in

So, in order to qualify for criminal copyright, there needs to be demonstration of considerable inconvenience or damage. That's the crux of what I was talking about right there. If CIAPC is smart, this is the thing that TPB is going to have to show to make it a criminal case.

There's also the question of money. Paying a fine or jail time is the punishment for criminal copyright infringement. Under Chapter 49, that fine would likely be a state matter (paid to the state). There is, however, a stipulation in the Copyright Acts (the first link).

Quote:

Section 57(3)Anyone who, otherwise than by using a work, is guilty of an act punishable under section 1, 3 or 5 of Chapter 49 of the Penal Code, or section 56a, paragraph 1 of section 56e or section 56f of this Act, shall be obliged to pay the author damages for any loss, mental suffering or other detriment caused by the crime.

So that's where TPB would get money themselves. The question is: how much? This is where their case gets tricky. The more "damage" they push for, the more CIAPC has to give them. But, that also means that every future copyright case will also have a high standard for damages. And coming from the horses mouth, as it were, could be a PR coup for CIAPC. "Even Pirates believe piracy can cause large amounts of damage" could help them in every future court case.

I am, of course, assuming rational and good council for CIAPC. It's entirely possible that they don't handle this well and TPB could really just stomp all over them. If they're good though...even losing money can help them get more money in the future.

"1) intentionally or through gross negligence produces a work piece or the work may be available to the public in violation of the provisions of this Act or in violation of § 3 of the moral rights provisions,"

etc gets fined, unless they consider it serious enough and use criminal code where you can get upto 2 years jail time.

Why would the testimony from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage be relevant even in a US law context? Perhaps I just don't understand your point.

Lets just assume for ease of understanding that we're talking about the US. I think we both agree that the relevant copyright law says whatever it says? I think we also agree that what the PP/AG/TPB would need to do in court is show that CIAPC is in breach of the law?

Whether TPB agrees with what the law says is irrelevant, and therefore any "testimony" from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage should just be inadmissible (i.e. even if CIAPC wants to ask TPB this a court would likely say there is no relevance)?

See, there's your problem. One of the standards to prove criminal copyright violation in the US is that there must be $1000 dollars in damages. So if they only show $999 in damages, it's not criminal copyright. Thus, in order to show standing, they'll have to testify about how serious the harm really is. Which is bad for them.

Quote:

In particular, all that the court would need to decide on is whether CIAPC actually infringed wilfully and if so whether the infringement was done in such a way that one of the three limbs was accurate? This has nothing to do with TPB's views on whether piracy has real-world damage.

One of them requires that you prove that it has at least $1000 of damages. They need to PROVE that. The other one is even more damaging: they'd have to prove that their website is designed for commercial distribution. That ties them, potentially, into saying their business is inherently tied to copyright infringement. Google, for example, may be used to find copyrighted material. But distributing it is not the commercial purpose of their company.

Quote:

Or are you saying that in a US criminal copyright context the intention of the copyright owner in bringing an infringement claim is relevant to whether or not that infringement claim is proven?

No, I'm saying they must prove that one of the three prongs of criminal copyright infringement is present. Proving it opens them up to harm.

Quote:

Btw, nice one on the usage policy Obviously neither the slashdot poster or I looked into it very much. hahaha.

Well, I'm not on either side of this case, so I can look into the questions from both angles. It does make it easier. I'm still going through the Finnish stuff, and I'll keep posting thoughts and updates on it if I come across something interesting.

[quote="SaddleUp"The Pirate Bay idiots had no right given them under any law or constitution, and it is not an inherent right, to take something or facilitate the taking of something that did not belong to them. The analogy you used is really a bad one. [/quote]We don't have an inherent right to sit on buses either. Free societies are based on the notion that we can do everything except what we explicitly cannot do.

Quote:

If someone takes something that does not belong to them or faciliates in some way for others to take something that does not belong to them, that is wrong because those things do not belong to them and they had no permission to take them, no law or constitution that said they had the right to do so, no inherent right to do so, it was wrong. If someone walked into your house and took something but claimed it was an exercise of free speech or some other such nonsense, would you think it was wrong for them to take that without your permission or even be in your house to begin with?

Pull your head out of your ass for a secon an realie that copyright infringement is not theft. Not legally, not morally, not technically. Copyright is a practical institution, not a moral one, so unauthorized copying of published works can never be wrong. Copyright is a means to an end, that end being having more works for the public to have available. It is only justified to the extent that the benefits outweigh the social costs of monopoly, and we are undeniably far past that point, and there's not much good evidence that such a point exists in reality at all.

Quote:

If a person doesn't know the difference between what Rosa Parks did and what TBP did, then I doubt they really know the difference between right and wrong. If they need the law to apply semantics and definitions when something is wrong then they probably don't really know the difference between right and wrong. If all they can do is take specific words and try to apply legal semantics in some way then they probably do not understand the concept of right and wrong.

Actually, in retrospect, we will probably see copyright as a backwards and primitive institution, and our descendants will be dumbfounded on how we could believe in something so idiotic. In that respect, the views of Rosa Parks and TPB would be similar. Both are fairly innocuous behaviors that are by a peculiarity of law prohibited. Such prohibitions are the results of an oppressive culture, and standing against such oppression is in fact a just and righteous action.

Thanks, I did find them in English, actually. Although, I meant to note this earlier: The latest amendment (The latest amendment No. 776/2010) is specifically noted as not being included in the English translation, so that might change things. There is also the matter that the words in English are not legally binding. They are only legally binding in Finnish and Sweedish.

So, while my discussion of this may produce some good discussion, I am reading a translation of laws that is potentially incomplete, and is not legally binding. My ruminations on it should not be construed as absolute or positive. I am merely relating my experience to what I can find, and everything I am saying should be understood as having these caveats. I do not position myself as an expert in the laws of Finland.

If there are any people from Finland (or who speak Finnish/Swedish) with a legal background and can offer an opinion on this, I would certainly take their advice over mine.

Why would the testimony from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage be relevant even in a US law context? Perhaps I just don't understand your point.

Lets just assume for ease of understanding that we're talking about the US. I think we both agree that the relevant copyright law says whatever it says? I think we also agree that what the PP/AG/TPB would need to do in court is show that CIAPC is in breach of the law?

Whether TPB agrees with what the law says is irrelevant, and therefore any "testimony" from TPB on whether piracy has real-world damage should just be inadmissible (i.e. even if CIAPC wants to ask TPB this a court would likely say there is no relevance)?

See, there's your problem. One of the standards to prove criminal copyright violation in the US is that there must be $1000 dollars in damages. So if they only show $999 in damages, it's not criminal copyright. Thus, in order to show standing, they'll have to testify about how serious the harm really is. Which is bad for them.

Quote:

In particular, all that the court would need to decide on is whether CIAPC actually infringed wilfully and if so whether the infringement was done in such a way that one of the three limbs was accurate? This has nothing to do with TPB's views on whether piracy has real-world damage.

One of them requires that you prove that it has at least $1000 of damages. They need to PROVE that. The other one is even more damaging: they'd have to prove that their website is designed for commercial distribution. That ties them, potentially, into saying their business is inherently tied to copyright infringement. Google, for example, may be used to find copyrighted material. But distributing it is not the commercial purpose of their company.

Quote:

Or are you saying that in a US criminal copyright context the intention of the copyright owner in bringing an infringement claim is relevant to whether or not that infringement claim is proven?

No, I'm saying they must prove that one of the three prongs of criminal copyright infringement is present. Proving it opens them up to harm.

Okay, if they have to prove one of the three prongs, why would they introduce evidence about the $1000 prong? If TPB chose not to, how would CIAPC compel such evidence? If CIAPC cannot compel this, what is your point?

This discussion may be moot depending on the Finnish legal position, but my understanding is that your initial argument has nothing to do with the finnish position but with the US position (which you are familiar with I assume...).

Pull your head out of your ass for a secon an realie that copyright infringement is not theft. Not legally, not morally, not technically. Copyright is a practical institution, not a moral one, so unauthorized copying of published works can never be wrong. Copyright is a means to an end, that end being having more works for the public to have available. It is only justified to the extent that the benefits outweigh the social costs of monopoly, and we are undeniably far past that point, and there's not much good evidence that such a point exists in reality at all.

Yup. I'm a copyright supporter in most discussions, but knbgnu is absolutely right here. Copyright is based on creating a public benefit by encouraging the production of ideas. It does this by creating a time-limited monopoly in order to facilitate monetary gain for successful ideas. There is, I believe, a good reason for it to exist. But if has undeniably gone past the idea of producing more, good ideas and has become about protecting those monopoly rights, and less content actually makes its way into the public domain, where it can be used freely to create new ideas. This goes against the purported reason for having it in the first place.

I support copyright. But pretending it's theft is completely bass-ackwards. Furthermore construing it to equal protection is a complete red herring.

Quote:

Actually, in retrospect, we will probably see copyright as a backwards and primitive institution, and our descendants will be dumbfounded on how we could believe in something so idiotic. In that respect, the views of Rosa Parks and TPB would be similar. Both are fairly innocuous behaviors that are by a peculiarity of law prohibited. Such prohibitions are the results of an oppressive culture, and standing against such oppression is in fact a just and righteous action.

I'll disagree here, knbgnu. We've hashed it out many times, so I think we can probably skip it this time, but I just wanted to state that I don't think copyright is (by it's nature) oppressive. It's current format is getting that way, but there's a middle ground where it exists and actually accomplishes the goals without being oppressive.

Okay, if they have to prove one of the three prongs, why would they introduce evidence about the $1000 prong?

Again, this is now all hypothetical, since I located the Finnish laws, but it's worth considering. There are three prongs.

1) is to show that it's for commercial gain. That would be TPBs best case scenario, but that's where (in the States) the parody question would pop up. TPB might be able to argue that since it promotes people to buy stuff legally by linking to i, it's for commercial gain...but that's a dangerous road. If where you link for commercial gain is important, then TPB is also responsible for where IT links. Meaning: they're potentially on the hook for vicarious piracy based on their links.

2) is the $1,000 one. TPB has to prove damages, meaning they are arguing about how violating copyright can cause harm.

3) is that they were releasing the code for commercial publication. Which would be hard to show. Do they sell their website code to people? If the argument is that they're selling the content by putting ads on it, then they are also therefore tying themselves commercially to infringing content.

Now of course, there are a lot of other laws in the US that would enter into the mix (safe harbors), but this would be the three prong test.

Quote:

If TPB chose not to, how would CIAPC compel such evidence? If CIAPC cannot compel this, what is your point?

My point is this: of the three prongs, 2 are exceedingly hard to prove and could be used to prove that TPB is actually complicit in copyright infringements. I assume their lawyers aren't foolish enough to open up that can of worms (again, I'm assuming rational behavior here). If they're not going to try those, then the only one that doesn't hurt them directly is the question of money.

So if they avoid the prongs that are really dangerous for them, the only one left is the money question. If they don't bring that up, then they don't have standing to sue. The case would get tossed.

Quote:

This discussion may be moot depending on the Finnish legal position, but my understanding is that your initial argument has nothing to do with the finnish position but with the US position (which you are familiar with I assume...).

Yep, that was what I was arguing from. It's an interesting discussion, but now that we have the Finnish law in front of us, it might be off-topic for this story. I'll gladly take it to PM if you'd like to ask anything else about it.

Okay, that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with your argument in the first prong about parody (because if a parody defence applies surely there would be no wilful infringement in the first place and so we wouldn't even get to the first prong), but I do think it's reasonable to say that an argument about linking being commercial would in the larger picture hurt TPB.

Would you agree that from a US perspective that if TPB managed to show infringement (i.e. civil copyright suit) there would be no risk of TPB testimony being compelled on that point if TPB elected for statutory damages?

I think there is almost no point considering the Finnish statutes from a common law perspective, and given the complete dissimilarity I'm not sure that any argument here is of any significant value (unless a Finnish advocate deigns to suggest possibilities).

I support copyright. But pretending it's theft is completely bass-ackwards.

Nice weasel logik. So if one takes a CD without permission from a music store, an act of theft did not occur because the perp was charged with shoplifting, and not "theft?" Right.

When Joel Tenenbaum was up before Judge Nancy Gertner for copyright infringement and she kept asking him why he needed to steal music, do you think she didn't know the difference between copyright infringement and the crime of theft? How about every time Judge Michael Davis referred to Jammie Thomas-Rasset stealing music during her many trials, was he pretending the charge was theft by using the word stealing, or was he just referring to an act of stealing as it's used in common English when referring to the taking of something that does not belong to you.

Copyright infringement can involve acts of stealing, just like the crimes of shoplifting, embezzlement, or wire fraud can involve acts of taking that which does not belong to you.

Those who pretend otherwise are weasels like knbgnu who like to pretend morality has nothing to do with the law.

I support copyright. But pretending it's theft is completely bass-ackwards.

Nice weasel logik. So if one takes a CD without permission from a music store, an act of theft did not occur because the perp was charged with shoplifting, and not "theft?" Right.

In your example a cd was taken so... obviously that is theft? Of course, taking a CD is not copyright infringement.

Quote:

When Joel Tenenbaum was up before Judge Nancy Gertner for copyright infringement and she kept asking him why he needed to steal music, do you think she didn't know the difference between copyright infringement and the crime of theft? How about every time Judge Michael Davis referred to Jammie Thomas-Rasset stealing music during her many trials, was he pretending the charge was theft by using the word stealing, or was he just referring to an act of stealing as it's used in common English when referring to the taking of something that does not belong to you.

Copyright infringement can involve acts of stealing, just like the crimes of shoplifting, embezzlement, or wire fraud can involve acts of taking that which does not belong to you.

Yes? But he said that it was not theft, not that it doesn't involve "stealing".

Would you agree that from a US perspective that if TPB managed to show infringement (i.e. civil copyright suit) there would be no risk of TPB testimony being compelled on that point if TPB elected for statutory damages?

A civil suit is a completely different beast, but it's likely that they'd still have to demonstrate some harm. For the purposes of playing devil's advocate, if I'm in the US and TPB sues me for copyright infringement in a civil suit, my defense would likely largely center around the idea of there being no harm done. If you're a juror, and you hear that there hasn't been any actual harm, and no one from TPB says otherwise, why would you believe they were entitled to compensation? So again, I think the question becomes: is it possible to show damages without strengthening the position that copyright infringement causes harm?

Obviously, I'm of the opinion that it would be exceedingly difficult to do so, if it is even possible at all. So I think the lawsuit was ill-advised. The threat? Pitch-perfect lampooning of often over-used talking points by the content industry. They nailed them. Going through with it...eh. I just worry that they'll make it worse for themselves.

Let me go a bit off topic here. I'm not a supporter of either CIAPC, MPAA, RIAA or the Pirate Bay. Honestly, I think copyright maximalism is bad, and so is piracy. So I'm not going to really root for either side here. That being said, TPB is a necessary evil. The content industry is wildly unchecked and backed by politicians who are as short-sighted as the executives. So TPB needs to exist to counter the clout of these groups. I do not pirate, I do not really condone it, either. But neither do I want to see it destroyed, until there is a sea change in the legislation that shortens copyright dramatically. So while I'm not "rooting" for TPB, at the same time, their actions do concern me, as I think they're putting themselves at risk. Even worse, taking certain positions in a court will actually harm their users. I'm not a big fan of that idea.

Would you agree that from a US perspective that if TPB managed to show infringement (i.e. civil copyright suit) there would be no risk of TPB testimony being compelled on that point if TPB elected for statutory damages?

A civil suit is a completely different beast, but it's likely that they'd still have to demonstrate some harm. For the purposes of playing devil's advocate, if I'm in the US and TPB sues me for copyright infringement in a civil suit, my defense would likely largely center around the idea of there being no harm done. If you're a juror, and you hear that there hasn't been any actual harm, and no one from TPB says otherwise, why would you believe they were entitled to compensation? So again, I think the question becomes: is it possible to show damages without strengthening the position that copyright infringement causes harm?

My impression was that in the US a copyright owner could just elect for statutory damages once there is infringement?

...the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. ...

At worst if there is no evidence on actual damage and TPB elects not to give evidence, they might just get the $750?

---

On TPB itself, I'm actually a little surprised it still exists, since the original operators/founders have already been found guilty. You have to think that whoever is operating it now would be rather worried...

I support copyright. But pretending it's theft is completely bass-ackwards.

Nice weasel logik. So if one takes a CD without permission from a music store, an act of theft did not occur because the perp was charged with shoplifting, and not "theft?" Right.

If there were 20 CDs, and I steal one, the owner has 19. If there were 20 copies of a song, and I make a copy of one...the owner still has 20 copies. I have not transfered ownership, I have merely made an unauthorized copy. That's what copyright is-- the right to make copies. Making a copy without the permission of the person who owns the copyright is copyright infringement, But it's not theft.

Quote:

Those who pretend otherwise are weasels like knbgnu who like to pretend morality has nothing to do with the law.

Except that theft is the unlawful appropriation of property with the intent to keep it from it's original owner. When you copy a file, you're not appropriating it-- you're copying it and keeping the thing you created. So, if I have a magic raygun that creates a copy of anything I shoot, you're saying it would be theft to walk into a museum, shoot a piece of art, and take the copy, leaving the original in place? What physical property of the museum have I taken? None.

That's not to say that I don't think that piracy can cause harm-- I do. But it 's a different type of crime entirely. It's a violation of your government-granted rights, not a theft of your property. And your absolutist position is actually further removed from the legal definitions than is knbgnu's or mine. So they're not "pretending"...they're right. Knbgnu and I disagree on whether copyright infringement is a bad thing. I think it is, in total. But one thing it is not is theft.

I support copyright. But pretending it's theft is completely bass-ackwards.

Nice weasel logik. So if one takes a CD without permission from a music store, an act of theft did not occur because the perp was charged with shoplifting, and not "theft?" Right.

Copyright infringement can involve acts of stealing, just like the crimes of shoplifting, embezzlement, or wire fraud can involve acts of taking that which does not belong to you.

The weasel logic is you pretending that there is no context around "acts of taking" as it applies to the crime of theft. Since you continue to repeat this nonsense, how about I try and clarify it for you with a single sentence:

Actually, in retrospect, we will probably see copyright as a backwards and primitive institution

What is your proposed replacement, or should there just be no copyright?

No copyright. I wouldn't be opposed to a legal requirement of attribution, but I suspect that common courtesy would be good enough. I also suspect that it would be more common in a copyright free environment. There are lots of references to other works, cribbing, and the like, in virtually all forms of media, but in the current environment, admitting that is a bad legal move. I'm sure that many authors and artists, myself included, would be more than happy to admit where we got something from, but doing so is currently a liability.